Grammar Correction in ESL/EFL Writing Classes May Not Be Effective

Introduction

Second language writing textbooks for teachers are typically
full of advice concerning techniques and activities to use in class,
but they rarely tell teachers what things not to do. The purpose of
this short paper is to argue that a widely used and very popular form
of writing class correction feedback should be avoided.

Most ESL/EFL writing teachers would strongly agree with the statement
that teacher correction feedback is a necessary part of any writing
course. Most would also concur that grammar correction is essential.
This belief seems to be intuitively obvious and just plain common
sense, but solid research conducted in the last 20 years has revealed
it to be wrong. This paper aims to explain why, and also attempts to
offer some practical recommendations on the type of feedback writing
should be giving their students in place of grammar feedback.

The case for grammar correction in writing classes is based on the idea
that if a teacher points out to a student a grammatical error they have
made, and provides, indirectly or directly, the correct form, the
student will then understand the mistake they have made, learn from it,
and their ability to write accurately will improve. It is also widely
felt that if teachers do not correct their students' grammatical
mistakes, 'fossilization' will occur, and it will become very difficult
to later eliminate these errors. Studies have shown
these arguments to be incorrect.

Grammar Correction in Second Language Writing Courses Does Not Work

The research that has been conducted on grammar correction in writing
classes has largely consisted of comparative studies measuring the
effectiveness of different types of feedback on students writing
abilities. In a famous study by Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986), four
kinds of grammar corrections used on the surface errors of Japanese
students were compared to see if they had an influence on the students'
writings over time. These types were: (a) explicit correction, where
errors were pointed out and correct forms offered; (b) marking mistakes
with a yellow pen, without explanation; (c) a tally was kept in the
margin of the number of errors per lines, and students were told to
examine the line and find and correct the mistakes; (d) the use of a
correction code which showed both the location and kind of errors. In
all these cases, the students were told to write their essays again,
making the necessary corrections. Results showed that at the end of the
course, no significant differences existed between all the groups in
terms of accuracy. Consequently, the authors concluded that
comprehensive treatment and overt corrections of surface errors are
probably not worth the trouble for teachers to make.

Additional studies have shown that neither the use of direct or
indirect techniques in correcting student errors has an influence on
writing ability results. Moreover, making full (every error is
corrected by the teacher) or selective (only one type of error is
marked at a time) grammatical corrections is also not effective. There
is no evidence of a delayed effect to grammatical
corrections, that is to say, an effect which later shows up. The kind
of instruction used by teachers in the study did not appear to have an
impact on the results. Nor was the lack of benefits of grammatical
correction dependent upon the students' gender, age, proficiency level,
or educational background. (For additional information on these
studies, see Truscott's seminal article (1996), Krashen (2004a) and
Loewen (1998). Interestingly, many of these results are also true of
corrections made in first language writing classes).

The results of these studies should not be too surprising, for as John
Truscott has noted:

Veteran teachers know there is little
connection between correction and learning: Often a student will
repeat the same mistake over and over again, even after being
corrected many times. When this occurs, it is tempting for the teacher
to say the student is not attentive or lazy; however, the pervasiveness
of the phenomenon, even with successful students, argues against any
such explanation. Rather the teacher should conclude that correction
simply is not effective. (Truscott 1996, p.
341).

Grammatical Correction in ESL/EFL Writing Classes Can Actually Be
Harmful To Students' Performance and Development

Numerous studies have revealed that grammar correction to second
language writing students is actually discouraging to many students,
and even harmful to their writing ability (Semke 1984; Kepner 1991;
Sheppard 1992; and Truscott 1996). Generally those who do not receive
grammar corrections have a more positive feeling about writing than
those who did, wrote more, and with more complexity, than those who did
receive grammar corrections. Moreover, the time spent by students and
teachers on correcting grammatical errors causes needed attention to be
sidetracked from other important elements of writing, like organization
and logical development of content.

Why Doesn't Grammar Correction Work?

The first reason why writing class grammar feedback doesn't work is
that it treats only the surface appearance of grammar and not with the
way language develops (see Truscott 1996 for details). Secondly,
learning grammar in a second language is a complex and gradual process
which occurs both developmentally and hierarchically (some items are
acquired before others). Compounding this is the fact that the learning
of linguistic items does not occur in a linear fashion, that the
learning curve for an item is full of valleys and peaks, progress and
regressions. Therefore, for grammatical correction to work, the
correction must be precisely tied into the correct levels of this
process. If a student is given a correction for a stage he has not yet
reached, it would not be effective. In order to offer useful
corrections, a teacher would need to precisely know where the student
is developmentally and hierarchically in terms of their grammar level.
Yet because of the complexity involved in learning grammar, this would
be a virtual impossibility.

The third reason for the ineffectiveness of grammar correction involves
the practicalities associated with teachers comments and students
understanding of these comments. Research has shown that corrections
made by second language writing teachers are frequently arbitrary, not
consistent, and greatly dependent upon the age and amount of time the
teacher has with L2 students. According to Zamel (1995), teachers also
commonly misread student texts and evoke abstract rules and principles
in their comments. Moreover, students often find teachers remarks
vague, confusing, and contradictory, and feel that teachers do not
provide sufficient grammatical explanations about their writing
mistakes (Cohen 1987). Finally, students generally only make a mental
note of the corrections they have understood, and if they have to
rewrite their papers, regularly donot incorporate these corrections into their work (Cohen 1987).

Practical Implications For ESL/EFL Teachers

So what should a L2 writing teacher do? The quickest and most effective
solution would be for writing instructors to simply stop making grammar
corrections. This would of course be difficult for teachers to do
because it has been shown most students strongly expect teachers to
notice their writing errors and comment on them, and they become quite
resentful if this does not occur. Adding to this pressure to give
grammar feedback is the fact that established curriculum of many
language school and university writing programs (especially overseas)
is based on the value of grammar correction and if a teacher did not
employ it, they would have a good chance of being considered
unprofessional.

One possible solution to this problem which I have found to be useful
is to give periodic short grammatical lessons at the beginning of class
(the week after a big homework assignment), and I discuss one or two
widespread grammatical problem (e.g. articles, prepositions) that I
encountered in the students' homework. This usually has gone overwell and generally satisfied the students need for grammatical
correction feedback. Krashen (2004b) recommends teachers simply inform
their students of the limitations of grammar correction but I have
doubts whether students would be satisfied with such an explanation.

But just because grammar feedback is problematic does not mean all
feedback is ineffective. The general problem with is with the focus of
S2 teacher's feedback. Studies indicate that writing teachers spend
most of their busy time offering grammatical or surface level
corrections in their comments. In other words, they commonly view their
students' work as language instead of writing teachers, concentrating
primarily on form over content. As a consequence, they address only one
part of the writing process. What writing teachers need to do is give
priority to MEANING and MEANING RELATED problems, to make remarks about
students' texts instead of just form. Semke (1984) has demonstrated
that students who received comments from teachers only on content did
much better and spent more time working on their essays than those who
received criticism only on grammar.

Specifically, this means that teachers should devote their time to
areas like:

Organization

Logical development of ideas and arguments

Effectiveness of introduction and conclusion

Content

Use of description

Thesis statement

Focus

Use of facts and experience

Cogency and consistency of how and why explanations

In short, teachers need to train themselves to set aside their red pens
and examine ideas and see what students are trying to say instead of
simply looking for grammatical errors.

If ESL/EFL writing teachers are really concerned with improving their
student's grammatical competency, they should, in lieu of offering
grammar correction feedback, constantly stress in their classes
the importance of outside reading. Studies have shown that voluntary,
'light,' authentic reading (graphic novels, comics, the easy section of
newspapers, popular literature) in the target language greatly helps
the overall writing and grammatical skills of second language students
(Krashen 2004a).

Teaching writing can be a very taxing and time-consuming process.
Minimizing grammatical error feedback has the advantage of greatly
simplifying teachers jobs, giving them needed time to spend on
concentrating on other important elements of the writing process, while
also removing a significant impediment to their students learning how
to effectively write.